Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Is Trump POTUS or not POTUS?
Yes, so, as I keep looking into things, it seems "martial rule" (differentiated from "martial law" only by the extent and pervasiveness by which martial law is implemented) "may exist de facto".
I think this 'de facto martial rule' occurs the moment there's any power vacuum. It need not be declared or proclaimed at all.
The following is in Trump talk, in the hope Americans can understand.
Look, I really appreciate Americans (Americans are really special - top notched, good folk; I've been to America many times - always a fantastic experience, just absolutely fantastic, especially the more south you go: the more south you go, the friendlier the Americans are, especially in Texas; which is really special, super great, super special place - nobody loves Texas more than me, seriously; trust me on that) - OK, all I'm saying by all these posts about whether or not Trumped finished taking the oath before noon is that some American - remember I've said that I love Americans, right? - some American who knows about such things, you know, constitutional stuff, could clarify this for me - just a concerned Canadian - just a little bro up north - you gotta stand by family, eh? Super important.... Yes, I know, I know, it might be hard (even though we're family) for Americans to imagine what Canadians go through - I get it - Really I do; it's got to be difficult for Americans to understand that for many Canadians winters are very long and cold; the point is that at some point our igloos start melting and we can't live in them, sometimes as early as February in some places - no joke, seriously - back in the day, it used to be that Canadians (not all Canadians live in igloos, of course, but many do, and more and more are doing this; I'll tell you why sometime) - many Canadians who live in igloos could live in their igloos until at least April in most places back in the day; I'm serious; that's a fact: I wouldn't lie about something like that - Look, I'm an honest guy, a straight-from-the-hip shooter; everybody says that about me - My favorite uncle - he was American, BTW - a great guy, the greatest, my favorite uncle; I said that - I just loved him to bits, just about everybody did: everybody called him papa bear back in the day, we all did - anyway, the point is, he always talked to people about how my 'moral compass' always seemed to point true north, so trust me when I say I love Americans! What was I talking about? Right, igloos. Look, having to move out of igloos seems to happen earlier and earlier each year for many Canadians (we won't get into the reasons for that just now and let that sleeping dog lie for now, eh?) - the point is that many Canadians who live in igloos in the winter live in tents when their igloos melt in the spring (I already said how it seems more and more Canadians are living in igloos and tents, eh? but, hey, again, we won't get into the reasons for that right now and let that sleeping dog lie, too) - the point is that one of the best places to tent for many Canadians is by the beach, and, well, you know, the best weather come spring and the best beaches for tenting are south of us, eh? (I'll tell you the best beach I ever went to was in Pensacola - or was it Panama City Florida - somewhere near the two - the sand: fabulous, just fantastic, so fine it squeaked between your toes) - anyway, since I'm Canadian, see, and well, since I like living in Canada, you know, because I am Canadian, but, I've already said it and you heard me say it; I've said it a thousand times: the best beaches for tenting, they're south of us, and you've heard me say how up here Canadians' igloos are melting earlier and earlier, eh? - so, look, what I'm saying is I like living in Canada and all, but come February when my igloo melts, I might - and I'm not saying anything definite here - just a possibility - I might - and many Canadians who live in igloos in the winter and tents by spring - they too might, MIGHT, just might - I said that, right? - they MIGHT like to go and pitch their springtime tents on beaches down south in America somewhere come spring (personally, I like Point Roberts - fabulous, really special beaches there, absolutely fabulous... - sure its not Pensacola or anything, but amazing in it's own way... Why? OK, I'll level with you: what's really special about tenting on a beach on Point Roberts is that it still feels like Canada there, and I'm Canadian, so, well, there you go. How does it feel 'Canadian' you might ask? Look. Some things just are, you know? Yeah, you know. Anyway, the point is that maybe - now I'm not saying this is 100% true - just maybe I have a very rare, complex psychological / psychiatric / neurological condition and I need totally legal, medicinal marijuana prescribed by a totally legit doctor - great guy - a fabulous doctor - treats me just amazingly - knows everything there is to know about rare psychological / psychiatric / neurological conditions - wait, so, just remember I said I am not saying 100% that I have some condition - I said IF I had such a condition - Look, it 'might be' Tinfoil Hat Syndrome - OK, so, all I'm saying is I might need to bring some of that weed with me to the beach down on Point Roberts (because without weed I might start looking around for tinfoil to make a hat of it and nobody wants to see that happen - trust me on that /wink /thumb-up) and so what I am saying is that I need a friendly American in the know about the US constitution and whatnot to tell me - just a friendly little bro up north - whether or not I'll be facing a military or a civil court when - oops - I mean IF - Did I say when? I said IF didn't I? Yes, you heard me say if - yes you did /points /winks - Look, all I want to know by making all these posts is IF I declare at the border I've brought my legally prescribed medicinal weed with me to go camping on Point Roberts, will they take my weed? Could I get thrown into a military prison, or will I get a chance to explain stuff to a civil law court judge?
/looks for some tinfoil
Seek help.
Zarf,
I was parodying Trump:
Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546796/ … p-sentence
If you think I should 'seek help' you must think the same of Trump.
Additionally, your 'seek help' comment indicates you actually think there's no need to take any points made via my satirical, facetious, sarcastic parodying of Trump (or previous posts) because I actually have a psychological / psychiatric / neurological problem of some sort that calls into question the soundness of ALL of my intellectual positions / cognitive and / or intellectual capacity as a whole.
Well, your 'seek help' comment therefore simply a cop-out, a way to justify to yourself not having to provide an adequate response to any sound and valid points made regardless of what my sate of mind might be.
Do you think ALL points I might make couldn't possibly be sound or valid nor worth your time adequately responding to because they were made by someone you think must have some sort of condition requiring them to 'seek help'? Plenty of people with such conditions still have sound and valid points worthy of consideration and response; therefore your 'seek help' comment was ignorant, insulting, and inciting.
I shouldn't have to explain I was being sarcastic, facetious, satirical, etc.
When I refer to 'the lizard shadow government', it's not like I believe in the conspiracy theory that an alien reptilian species from another planet has infiltrated and formed a shadow government. What I am saying is if a shadow government exists (which could), such a government is clearly acting in a reptilian manner, and calling them a 'lizard shadow government' wouldn't be all that inaccurate. The the people in power behind the scenes (whether an actual shadow government or not) seem to react in instinctual, knee-jerk ways, as if they were using only the primordial 'lizard' or 'reptilian' parts of their brains rather than the higher-brain functions available to people who have functional cerebral cortexes and cerebellums.
Edit: your 'seek help' comment was, essentially, bigotry against a traditionally oppressed group: those with psychological / psychiatric / neurological conditions; therefore verging on hate speech.
Edit: additionally, your 'seek help' comment was an ad hominem attack, not permissible according to forum rules.
Edit: do you think that because you carry the 'moderator' badge, the rules don't apply to you?
If you think I should 'seek help' you must think the same of Trump.
Yep! I didn't vote for the guy. 
If you didn't notice, I was giving what could be characterized as perfectly reasonable responses until the moment Trumpspeak happened.
To be clear, my problem was with the fact that I had to try and decipher an argument from Trumpspeak. Nothing more, and I apologize for any indication of otherwise.
Oh, well, yeah, if you think my Trumpspeak was anything other than satirical parody, your comment would have been totally justified.
That you missed the fact it was satirical parody is worrisome (thought that was clear), but, I suppose, forgivable, and, therefore, I suppose your comment in response to it is likewise forgivable.
That said,
X(
I kind of burst into tears trying to understand the argument in the Trumpspeak pile.
/sigh
even Trumpspeak didn't work.
X(
To Trump's credit, he does come to the point, eventually, and so did my Trumpspeak!
X(
"Could I get thrown into a military prison, or will I get a chance to explain stuff to a civil law court judge?"
It seems the USA is operating under defacto "martial rule".
"Could I get thrown into a military prison, or will I get a chance to explain stuff to a civil law court judge?"
It seems the USA is operating under defacto "martial rule".
No answer?
Fine. I'll just go ahead and assume there's a significant probability that the USA IS operating under clandestine, defacto martial rule, and to play it safe I'll go to a beach somewhere on the Canadian side of the border instead.
There are plenty of islands with just as great weather and just as great beaches on the Canadian side of the border.
(They are more expensive to get to, though, because you have to take a ferry. 
)
Edit: BTW, I'm not saying whether I am for or against USA implementing measures of clandestine / defacto martial rule / martial law. Personally, considering how things are going in Canada, it might be good for Canada to go that route, too.
Xeno wrote:"Could I get thrown into a military prison, or will I get a chance to explain stuff to a civil law court judge?"
It seems the USA is operating under defacto "martial rule".
No answer?
Fine. I'll just go ahead and assume there's a significant probability that the USA IS operating under clandestine, defacto martial rule, and to play it safe I'll go to a beach somewhere on the Canadian side of the border instead.
There are plenty of islands with just as great weather and just as great beaches on the Canadian side of the border.
(They are more expensive to get to, though, because you have to take a ferry.
Edit: BTW, I'm not saying whether I am for or against USA implementing measures of clandestine / defacto martial rule / martial law. Personally, considering how things are going in Canada, it might be good for Canada to go that route, too.
What are you asking? You quoted yourself asking about getting thrown into military prison.
Firstly, usually only military personnel get thrown into military prison, or enemy combatants/prisoners of war(not getting into debate over guitmo, that was fucked up).
Secondly, we are not operating under martial rule or martial law. The military is not in charge. The police are not in charge. The government still runs the country as it has for the past 240 some odd years.
What are you asking? [...] we are not operating under martial rule or martial law.
You can only know you are when it is declared; since it can exist de facto, you can't know you aren't.
I see now that it is a rhetorical question; I'm not expecting an answer any more.
Edit: Even when it is declared, you can't know 100%.
Edit 2: Therefore, to play it safe, Canadians should stay in Canada.
Edit 3: Please understand that my position is that western civilization is in a state of impending or de facto societal collapse (primarily due to totalitarianism resulting in <2 fertility rates), and, therefore, that de facto martial rule is probably being implemented (and probably should be so implemented) across the western world.
Here's an example of 'martial rule' that is probably being implemented de facto, regardless of 'constitutionality' or 'legality':
A member of parliament's office which might be deemed by intelligence services to be inadequately secured by the parliamentary member's party and / or civil authorities would probably have 'covert' security provided 'de facto' by that nation's military with or without the parliamentary member, government, or any civil authority being made aware of such, and certainly without the public being informed of such.
There are countless other probable examples of such 'martial rule' being implemented.
Here's an example of 'martial rule' that is probably being implemented de facto, regardless of 'constitutionality' or 'legality':
A member of parliament's office which might be deemed by intelligence services to be inadequately secured by the parliamentary member's party and / or civil authorities would probably have 'covert' security provided 'de facto' by that nation's military with or without the parliamentary member, government, or any civil authority being made aware of such, and certainly without the public being informed of such.
There are countless other probable examples of such 'martial rule' being implemented.
We're not under defacto martial rule.
Xeno wrote:Here's an example of 'martial rule' that is probably being implemented de facto, regardless of 'constitutionality' or 'legality':
A member of parliament's office which might be deemed by intelligence services to be inadequately secured by the parliamentary member's party and / or civil authorities would probably have 'covert' security provided 'de facto' by that nation's military with or without the parliamentary member, government, or any civil authority being made aware of such, and certainly without the public being informed of such.
There are countless other probable examples of such 'martial rule' being implemented.
We're not under defacto martial rule.
If not, then why all the systemic violations of western nations' constitutions, bills of rights, charters of rights, etc.?
If such systemic violations are not intentional nor for good reasons determined and enacted justifiably under de facto martial rule, then why such systemic violations of western nations' constitutions?
Anyway, whether or not certain measures of de facto martial rule have been in-force for decades is kind of derailing the thread. The point is that I think it is that I think de facto martial rule is in-force in the US, and, moreover, due to recent events, more strict measures thereof are to come.
And so, when my igloo melts (probably by mid-February) I think it would be safer for me to go tenting on beaches on the Canadian side of the border. Maybe by summer the Russian spies seemingly involved in he Trump Dossier will have stop ending up dead, and the oh-so-public treason trial for the Russian spies left alive will help settle things down a bit. By then, maybe the investigations by the CIA and FBI into the allegations in the Trump Dossier might be completed. But until then, who knows what measures the US military might take under de facto martial law. And so, yes, maybe by summer I will feel comfortable going camping in the US.
Again, it's systemic totalitarianism causing this: ?intentional? <2 fertility rates over the past 3 generations has rendered Canada, along with most other western nations, collapsed, done, defunct.
Personally, I think that alone is grounds for de facto martial rule, but there I go derailing my own thread again.
twistedpuppet wrote:Xeno wrote:Here's an example of 'martial rule' that is probably being implemented de facto, regardless of 'constitutionality' or 'legality':
A member of parliament's office which might be deemed by intelligence services to be inadequately secured by the parliamentary member's party and / or civil authorities would probably have 'covert' security provided 'de facto' by that nation's military with or without the parliamentary member, government, or any civil authority being made aware of such, and certainly without the public being informed of such.
There are countless other probable examples of such 'martial rule' being implemented.
We're not under defacto martial rule.
If not, then why all the systemic violations of western nations' constitutions, bills of rights, charters of rights, etc.?
Because law is complicated? This is a false dichotomy. There is absolutely no reason that a nation cannot be run by normal people who simply have different interpretations of what and is what not encompassed under various issues... without some shadow government behind it.
Why the violations (violations which you have not cited, incidentally, and thus which provide absolutely no capability for people to analyze the issues)? Because people are individuals.
So you're saying, Zarf, that just because there is a prevalence for systemic violations of western nations' constitutions, bills of rights, charters of rights, etc. this does not mean de facto martial rule is in-force. Okay. I'll grant you that.
De facto martial rule could be in-force regardless of any systemic violations of said fancy documents.
So you're saying, Zarf, that just because there is a prevalence for systemic violations of western nations' constitutions, bills of rights, charters of rights, etc. this does not mean de facto martial rule is in-force. Okay. I'll grant you that.
De facto martial rule could be in-force regardless of any systemic violations of said fancy documents.
Sure. It could be a thing. Now provide proof of it if you're going to hold onto the theory that it's currently a thing... keeping in mind that "violations of constitutions," as you've just granted... doesn't necessarily mean martial rule is in effect.
Xeno wrote:So you're saying, Zarf, that just because there is a prevalence for systemic violations of western nations' constitutions, bills of rights, charters of rights, etc. this does not mean de facto martial rule is in-force. Okay. I'll grant you that.
De facto martial rule could be in-force regardless of any systemic violations of said fancy documents.
Sure. It could be a thing. Now provide proof of it if you're going to hold onto the theory that it's currently a thing... keeping in mind that "violations of constitutions," as you've just granted... doesn't necessarily mean martial rule is in effect.
Oooo! You got a dislike, and a - 1 post point... for that post
awww...
It wasn't me, just so you know.
As for proof, well, I read an essay online by a military guy, I think he was a major... he mentioned it. Trying to find the essay online...
Yikes. Seems more difficult to find now. Lots of new mentions of 'de facto martial law / rule' for some reason now, maybe?
Anyway, it is a thing:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=zGxNAQ … edir_esc=y
Seems like a wonderful quote here:
[...]expression created for the sole purpose of establishing unconstitutional de facto martial rule on an individual ad hoc basis, over suspected enemies of the state, designed to circumvent the rule of law as protected in the Constitution and guarded by the Judiciary.(407) In Judicial matters such as habeas corpus, the President must defer to the Judiciary.(408) No deference is due to an Executive who ignores the law."(409)
What comes within the [...], I don't know.
Whatever [...] is, it must refer to something like, I dunno, maybe an 'Executive Order'? One might read within the [...]: "An illegal Executive Order is one which acts as an"
Okay, so, I finally found the essay from a certain Major Kirk L. Davies, titled the Imposition of Martial Law in the United States, from 49 Air Force Law Review 67-218, 85-90 (2000)
https://academic.udayton.edu/health/syl … Law01c.htm
Pertinent quotes:
In fact, one of the most noted authors on the subject of martial law, Charles Fairman, insists on referring to it as martial rule, thus eliminating the possibility of inferring that the condition is lawful.(5)
He states:
Martial law [in the sense we are using it] is more accurately described as martial rule, which obtain in a domestic community when the military authority carries on the government, or at least some of its functions. Martial rule may exist de facto; the term is noncommittal as to its legality.(6)
4. . For some people, the distinction between "martial rule" and "martial law" is a distinction without a different. For others, the terminology is important because of the underlying message sent by each term.
People imagine, when they hear the expression martial law, that there is a system of law known by that name, which can upon occasion be substituted for the ordinary system; and there is a prevalent notion that under certain circumstances a military commander may, by issuing a proclamation, displace one system, the civil law, and substitute another, the martial ... Let us call the thing by its right name; it is not martial law, but martial rule.
5. . For purposes of this article, the author prefers to use the more common term, "martial law," in order to avoid confusion. However, he agrees that "martial rule" is a more desirable term for describing the condition of military imposed rule.
Special attention to the following:
Martial rule may exist de facto; the term is noncommittal as to its legality.
This is a quote by Charles Fairman used in the essay by Major Kirk L. Davies who thinks Charles Fairman is "the most noted authors on the subject of martial law". It's from, "CHARLES FAIRMAN, THE LAW OF MARTIAL RULE 28 (2 ed. 1943) (quoting David Dudley Field in his argument before the Supreme Court in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2, 35 (1866))."
https://books.google.ca/books?id=o2xDAA … t+de+facto
So, there. I think I proved it's a thing.
"It is a concept" and "it is currently in effect" are two very different things. I questioned the latter. You are now trying to prove the former, which wasn't being argued.
EDIT: I see you have interpreted "Sure. It could be a thing" as meaning "de facto martial law may be a concept." That was not my intent. My intent with that sentence was a reply to your last sentence:
You said:
"De facto martial rule could be in-force regardless of any systemic violations of said fancy documents."
Me:
"Sure. It could be a thing." (As in... I am agreeing that de facto martial rule could be in force regardless of any systematic violations of said fancy documents.")
Continuing my quote:
"Now provide proof of it if you're going to hold onto the theory that it's currently a thing..."
That is... provide proof that de facto martial rule is currently in effect.... not that it's a concept people talk/write about. This interpretation is substantiated by the rest of the sentence...
"...keeping in mind that "violations of constitutions," as you've just granted... doesn't necessarily mean martial rule is in effect."
Notice the end clarifier of my intent. That should have made it very clear that I was saying "provide evidence we are currently in a state of de facto martial rule..."
I questioned the latter.
Oh, I presumed you understood that proving the latter would be impossible, unless I were a whistle-blower in the deep state / military / intelligence / state-corporate industrial complex.
Sorry to disappoint, but if this discussion is going to continue further, it's going to have to remain in the realm of 'theory' of the likelihood that certain aspects of martial rule may be in-force.
We could make references to current events that indicate that Trump's presidency is operating under defacto martial rule. For instance, there are plenty of stories from Canadians of Muslim heritage being turned away from entering the US because, apparently, they are asked by border guards (and answer fully and truthfully) about whether or not they are Muslim, how often they go to Mosque; how the border guards check their phone contacts and facebook accounts, etc., and don't seem to like what they see, etc.. This could be interpreted as evidence (albeit very circumstantial evidence and certainly not proof) that defacto martial rule is in effect in this regard: individual border guards may be ignoring the 'stay' ordered by the courts on Trump's 'Muslim Ban' and are instead following Trump's apparently illegal executive order.
From the above quote from American Journal of Criminal Law:
[...]expression created for the sole purpose of establishing unconstitutional de facto martial rule on an individual ad hoc basis, over suspected enemies of the state, designed to circumvent the rule of law as protected in the Constitution and guarded by the Judiciary.(407) In Judicial matters such as habeas corpus, the President must defer to the Judiciary.(408) No deference is due to an Executive who ignores the law."(409)
https://books.google.ca/books?id=zGxNAQ … edir_esc=y
One could read in the [...] in the above quote "The deliberate hindrance by third parties, or personal failure, for whatever reason, of an incumbent POTUS to complete taking his oath of office by noon on inauguration day is regarded by the supreme court as an"
(I have no idea what comes before the quote, as the full-text doesn't seem to be available )
As for other circumstantial evidence for de facto martial rule having been enacted might be the cannons going off before Trump finished his oath on inauguration day?
/shrugs
Other, better, albeit only circumstantial evidence could be collected, I suppose. Remember, because 'martial rule could exist 'de facto', there can't possibly be any absolute proof of it being in-force.
Even if declared, the military might not comply, and, therefore, it might not be in-force even when publicly declared.
Even not publicly declared, the military might comply with orders to conduct certain affairs of state usually left to civil authorities (for example, putting down a revolt against the state by a segment of the population who have taken-up arms). Even if this action might have been declared as implemented under 'martial law', in actuality, the action would not have been ordered by anyone in the military with the legal authority to order such an action: such orders would be supra-legal; no one has the 'legal' authority to order such martial action; therefore it is questionable and therefore impossibly proven, again, even when seemingly clearly declared 'martial' action is conducted, whether or not that action was in fact conducted under the implementation of martial rule.
Also, in the event the military does conduct affairs of state usually left to civil authorities, the event itself would most probably be done covertly because it would be by definition 'illegal', making proving it occurring impossible for any outsider, and, likewise, impossible for any insider: whatever claim a whistle-blower might make or whatever evidence he might provide, the determination of it being 'proof' as such would necessarily have to be determined by a court of law, and if martial rule IS in effect, it would be a military court rather than a civilian court making such an assessment. And what are the chances that a military court would side with the whistle-blower's claim or evidence that such is proof of the military operating de facto martial rule? Such would de-legitimize the very military court that would make any such ruling!
Endeavoring to prove de facto martial rule is in effect necessarily to entertain the realms of supposition, conjecture, theory, possibility, and probability.
And in my opinion, it is probable that the US is operating under de facto martial rule in various aspects; proving such would be impossible; best I or anyone else could do would be to offer circumstantial evidence raising or lowering 'the probability' of certain aspects of de facto martial rule being in effect in the US.
NOTHING prevents us from having no President at all for a whole day or days.
Obama's term ended at Noon.
Trump's term started when he took the oath.
This has been gone over every time a President has died in office.
"The first inauguration of Calvin Coolidge as the 30th President of the United States was held on August 3, 1923 at the Coolidge Homestead in Plymouth Notch, Vermont, following the death of President Warren G. Harding the previous evening. The inauguration marked the commencement of the first term (a partial term of 1 year, 213 days) of Calvin Coolidge as President. The presidential oath of office was administered to the new president by his father, John Calvin Coolidge Sr., who was a notary public."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_ina … n_Coolidge
Imperial Forum → Politics → Is Trump POTUS or not POTUS?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.